Thoughts Provoked by a News Article

I recently read an article on MSN News about the legal troubles of a woman who is called “Jihad Jane” (Colleen LaRose). The article describes her failed terrorist attack and how, after, she cooperated with the authorities. A link is posted below if you want more specifics on that. What I want to focus on in the post is the part of the article that describes how her history of abuse may have lead her to the path of jihad. I do not have any other specific articles or studies to corroborate what the author of that article seemed to allude to, but it is fair to find that a traumatic life, with unresolved pain, can leave one more malleable. (In the “Jihad Jane” story it is obvious that past trauma is unresolved because she described herself as lost at the same time she followed the orders of her “brothers” that she “loved”).

The real thing I would like to focus on is this question: How can you believe you cause is just, if you attract or purposely recruit broken individuals? Broken individuals will do anything to be loved. Your cause or argument holds no real sway, has no real relevance if the person would listen to almost anything you say if you worded it the right way. You can not call you cause just if most of the people who believe it are broken.

Okay. To clarify, so this argument does not necessarily negate the possibility that ones cause is just even if followed by the broken, however, if the cause is only followed by the broken then there is no proof that it is just.

Your argument holds no real value if it can't be applied to people who are thinking rationally. An arguments real relevance can only be seen if it is accepted by those who are ration. Winning over one rational thinker does not make one's argument valid or just. Though, winning over many rational thinkers does not make one's argument valid of just either.

The concept, I am struggling to get at here is that an argument should carter to rational human beings. An argument that carters to rational human beings can be just and valid (though not necessarily so). An argument that carters to irrational human beings (arguments that either attract or hunt for irrational human beings) can not be considered valid.

I guess overall, rational arguments are the only ones that can be valid or just.

References:

http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/jihad-jane-despite-cooperation-us-seeks-decades-in-prison